Talk:Implosion of Radio Network House/GA1

GA Review[edit]

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Bob1960evens (talk · contribs) 16:17, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I will review. I will make comments as I go. Please indicate what has been fixed below the relevant comments. I am not in favour or striking stuff out when it has been fixed, as it makes the review more difficult to read at a later date. Suggest using Done, or somesuch, if need be. I will work through the sections, leaving the lead until last. I will review the content first, and then check the refs. Bob1960evens (talk) 16:24, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking on the role as reviewer. This is very timely, as I have just about finished another GA, with only one outstanding issue to be addressed. I should get onto this one in the next day or two. Schwede 66 20:00, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Background[edit]

"Telstra New Zealand owned the naming rights to the building and prominently displayed the Clear^{[clarification needed]} logo." Naming rights are not a term that I am familiar with, but I note that there is an article called Naming rights, so it should be wikilinked on first occurence.
"Telstra New Zealand" has no introduction, and is a redlink, so we need a few more details. Is it a television / production / advertising company, etc. Again the Clear logo is something that many readers will not be familiar with, so needs a few words of explanation. I think that will then resolve the clarify tag, so that it can be removed.
"TVNZ". I presume that this is the same as Television New Zealand three sentences back, in which case the first occurence should be "Television New Zealand (TVNZ)" to introduce the abbreviation.
"move all of the Christchurch-produced shows". "the" should probably be "their", since the decision presumably only affected programmes they were responsible for.
Resolving the ^[when?] tag. We seem to have two issues here - the sale of the naming rights and the ownership of the building. For what it is worth, I think I would deal with ownership of the building first, so deal with Greg Hedges immediately after TVNZ moving out, and then deal with the naming rights. A suitable link ("During this period ...") should then resolve the "when" tag.

Ref 3 does not appear to support any of the information in the previous section.

I have dealt with all the items under this heading. Schwede 66 09:59, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The prose is much better. However, ref 2 does not support most of the information in the middle paragraph any more than ref 3 did. I have found details of the merger at [1], but cannot find much else online. Bob1960evens (talk) 13:49, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'll work in the TelstraClear ref; thanks for finding this. The reason that this part is so poorly referenced is that another editor added it with this edit, and he would presumably have worked from memory. What is stated there certainly aligns with my recollection of things, and I have no doubt that it's all correct. But I do doubt that we will find anything online about this. So what do we do? Do we just accept that there are certain aspects of the article that are unreferenced? Schwede 66 18:36, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There is no necessity for refs to be online, but there is a requirement for the article to be referenced. I have found this, which places The Son of a Gunn show in the building, and the moving of production to Wellington. I think the article would be very much poorer without this sort of background, but we do need most of it referenced. Bob1960evens (talk) 19:48, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Auction[edit]

"Soon after the announcement was made that the implosion had been approved..." I think this whole section is in the wrong place, since the implosion has not previously been mentioned, except in the lead. The decision to go for an implosion and the approval process need to be described first, so that this section has a context. The logical place for it would be about half way down the Implosion section, so perhaps split that into "Preparation" and "Implosion", and drop the "Auction" section in between.
"the demolition contractors considered the right to push the button for the implosion up for auction," doesn't make sense. Try expanding it a little, and I think it needs an extra verb somewhere.
"TradeMe" needs a little context, so people keep reading your article, rather than clicking on the link to find out what it is. So "the internet auction website TradeMe", or somesuch.
"the right to push the button could have gone for just $1". Suggest "been sold" rather than "gone".
"had used a person's laptop and put in a bid as a joke." Suggest "used ... to", or "borrowed ... and", rather then "used ... and".
"it had received the third highest number of viewers ever," Presumably, that is the third highest on TradeMe, and if so, needs to be made clear.
"a six-year-old boy from from Queenstown." Too many from's.
"The Government of New Zealand has pledged to match donations towards the restoration of heritage buildings dollar for dollar, so the final amount received by the Isaac Theatre Royal was NZ$52,000." The tense goes awry here. Suggest "The Government of New Zealand pledged", to align with "the final amount received .. was $52k".
Ref 9 makes no mention of flatmates and borrowed laptops.

I have dealt with most of the items under this heading, but still have to resolve the issue with Ref 9. Schwede 66 19:01, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Implosion[edit]

"The Press reported ..." Again, we need a little context to keep people reading your article. So: "The Press, a local/regional/national newspaper, reported..." or somesuch.
"Ceres ... partnered with Controlled Demolition, Inc.," also needs context. So: "... Inc., an American company based in Phoenix, Maryland, " or somesuch. This will also provide context for the final sentence of the paragraph.
"It was considered that the implosion of Radio Network House was a test case" needs active case, rather than passive. So: "The implosion of Radio Network House was [considered to be] a test case ..." or just leave out the [considered to be] altogether.
"and have thus much more reinforcing" Suggest "and thus have ..."
"including internal gib linings" Gib appears to be either a trade mark or an informal name for a type of plasterboard, which is local to New Zealand. It needs explanation for a wider readership.
"60 kg of explosives" needs imperial units. Suggest using {convert}.
"The building's owner," would be better as "The owner of the building,"
"everybody telling him that it can't be done" "Can't" is ok in a direct quote, but suggest "could not" as it is not a quote.
"An exclusion zone was put in place, with the closest distance to Radio Network House approximately 200 metres (660 ft)" doesn't read well. Suggest "An exclusion zone was put in place, to ensure that nobody would be within 200 metres (660 ft) of the building" or somesuch.
"a series of short explosions could be heard" "Could be" should be "were".
"which is apparently comparable" I don't think we need the "apparently".
"a representative from from Controlled Demolition" Too many "from"s again.
"with media in the Australia" should be "with media in Australia".
Ref 10 does not support "agreement over an acceptable process was reached between the parties without court action."

This seems quite a lot, but I think they are all fairly simple to resolve. I will be checking the refs next. Bob1960evens (talk) 14:27, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Y I've dealt with these comments. Regarding (what used to be) ref 10, what sometimes happens is that a printed version of Press articles is different to its online version. For this article, I worked mostly from printed versions, but then provided URLs where they were available, and it might well be that this can explain why the fact isn't referenced. I'll have to go back to my hardcopy for that, but I'm currently 'on the road', so that will have to wait until I'm home again. Schwede 66 18:20, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Other issues[edit]

Face the Music and After School both link to disambiguation pages, rather than articles.

Deal with the straightforward ones first. Schwede 66 05:00, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Lead[edit]

The lead should introduce the subject and summarise the content of the article. It seems just a little bit short. Perhaps a sentence on the length of time it took to agree the process, and maybe the involvement of an American company, because of the new approach. Then a mention of the fact that it was carefully monitored, to assess whether it was a suitable approach to be used in the future. What do you think?

Lead expanded as per your suggestions. Schwede 66 18:23, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have now checked all the online refs, and there are three that need resolving. (See above)

Note to self - deal with Refs 9 and 10. Schwede 66 19:01, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've had a look and couldn't find the hardcopies of The Press articles. I have a library membership that gives me online access to The Press, but I've just learned that they only have the last three months online, so the reference from 3 August is just outside of that period. I've changed the article to reflect that the refs don't back up what was written there. Schwede 66 18:53, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The formal bit[edit]

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
See comments above
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
See comments above
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias:
It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.:
It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
I cannot get the video to play, although if I click on it and go to Commons, I can play it there. I'm not sure if that is a general issue.
Overall:
Pass/Fail:

That is the review done. If I see evidence that the issues are being addressed in the next day or so, I will not put it on hold; otherwise it will be put on hold for 7 days. Bob1960evens (talk) 16:12, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well done. All issues have now been addressed. I also notice that the video clip now displays somewhat differently, and I can now play it from within the article. I am awarding the article Good Article status. Bob1960evens (talk) 09:44, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much for so ably guiding me through the process. Your suggestions have certainly made this a much better article. Sorry, I forgot to comment on the video; it started working again without me having done anything, so I suspect that it was a technical glitch on WP or Commons affecting videos in general. Schwede 66 00:33, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]